Fernando Duarte v. State ( 2012 )

NO. 07-12-0087-CR
NO. 07-12-0088-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
DECEMBER 11, 2012
FERNANDO ROBLES DUARTE,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_____________________________
FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF HEMPHILL COUNTY;
NOS. 2850 & 2851; HONORABLE STEVEN RAY EMMERT, PRESIDING
Memorandum Opinion
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant Fernando Robles Duarte appeals his convictions of
fraudulent use or possession of identifying information and tampering with
government records and his sentence of two years in state jail and a fine
of $2,000 in each case. After pleading guilty to the offenses, appellant
was placed on deferred adjudication for three years pursuant to a plea
bargain. Three months later, the State sought to have appellant
adjudicated guilty. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated
appellant's guilt.
Appellant's appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together
with an Anders[1] brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently
searching the record, he concluded that the appeals were without merit.
Along with his brief, appellate counsel included a copy of a letter sent to
appellant informing him of counsel's belief that there was no reversible
error and of appellant's right to file a response pro se. By letter dated
May 21, 2012, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his
own brief or response by June 20, 2012, if he wished to do so. To date, no
response has been filed.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate
counsel discussed potential areas for appeal which included 1) the
sufficiency of the evidence, 2) objections to the admission of hearsay
evidence, 3) error in the assessment of punishment, and 4) the
effectiveness of counsel. However, he has offered an explanation as to why
each issue is without merit.
In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the
accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any arguable
error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
After doing so, we concur with counsel's conclusions.
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and the
judgments are affirmed.[2]
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
-----------------------
[1]Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18
L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
[2]Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review
with the Court of Criminal Appeals.